Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.76 seconds)The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2002
R. Unnikrishnan & Anr vs V.K. Mahanudevan & Ors on 10 January, 2014
18. Accordingly, it is ordered that all benefits and rights
that have been granted to the petitioners as Scheduled Caste
prior to the commencement of the Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2007, shall not be deprived of
or cancelled in any manner as directed in the above said Division
Bench Judgment and the Apex Court judgment referred to
above. However, it is made clear that on and with effect from
30.8.2007, the writ petitioners are not entitled in law to be
treated as members of Scheduled Caste community in view of
the deletion of the 'Thandan' community of the erstwhile Cochin
and Travancore area from the purview of the Scheduled Castes
Order by virtue of the above said Act, 2007. The orders of the
competent authority of the Government of Kerala, dealing with
the status of the petitioners' community, may be worked out
subject to the condition that any benefit granted or accrued to
them as Scheduled Caste prior to 30.8.2007 shall not be
deprived or cancelled in any manner. But it is equally made
O.P.Nos.12115/1997 & 27037/2000 16
clear that the State of Kerala and their subordinate authorities
concerned are fully entitled in law to treat the petitioners as not
belonging to Scheduled Castes community on and with effect
from 30.8.2007 in view of the above said amendment Act, 2007.
Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kuppathode Madhavan Nair And Ors. vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 24 July, 1963
17. It is indisputable that the main matter in issue raised
in this writ proceedings are covered in view of the legal
principles laid down by the Division Bench in the aforementioned
O.P.Nos.12115/1997 & 27037/2000 15
decision in Madhavan P. and others v. State of Kerala and
others reported in 2010(2) KHC 739 and by the Apex Court in
the aforementioned decision reported in Unnikrishnan v.
Mahanudevan 2014(2) KLT 524(SC).
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
15. The Apex Court in the aforementioned decision mainly
relied on the judgments as in State of Maharashtra v. Milind
reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, Kavitha solunke v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430 and Sandeep
Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006)
7 SCC 501 etc. for coming to the above said conclusion.
Sandeep Subhash Parate vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 24 August, 2006
15. The Apex Court in the aforementioned decision mainly
relied on the judgments as in State of Maharashtra v. Milind
reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, Kavitha solunke v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430 and Sandeep
Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006)
7 SCC 501 etc. for coming to the above said conclusion.
B. Basavalingappa vs D. Munichinnappa on 23 September, 1964
The Apex Court
mainly relied on two Constitution Bench decisions in
B.Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa reported in 1965 (1)
O.P.Nos.12115/1997 & 27037/2000 5
SCR 316 and Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh and others
reported in (1965) 2 SCR 877, wherein it was held that any
amendment to the aforesaid Presidential Orders could only be
made by legislation enacted by the Parliament as mandated in
Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India. It was held by the
Apex Court that the courts could not assume jurisdiction and
order an enquiry to determine whether the terms of the
Presidential Order included a particular community and that the
State of Government is only entitled to initiate appropriate
proposals for modification in cases where it is satisfied that such
modifications are necessary and, if after appropriate enquiry, the
authorities were satisfied that a modification is required, then
an amendment through legislation should be undertaken as
provided in Article 341(2) of the Constitution of India.